American Republic Christianity Civil Society Civilization Constitution Democracy Government History Latest Ordered Liberty Political Philosophy Religion

Franklin Pierce, political protest and democratic dilemmas ~ Imaginative Conservative

Franklin Pierce [19659003] Franklin Pierce

Franklin Pierce's suspicions mirrored excitement within the Antebellum Democratic Social gathering in relation to slavery – how can we reconcile the defense of democratic decision-making with the existence of moral values ​​of transcendents, with the Structure in the Bible

in New Boston, New Hampshire In early January 1852, the pressure, Franklin Pierce, gave a very long time throughout which the hecklers of free soil pressured him to cope with his slavery thoughts. "He didn't support it," Harmony Unbiased Democrat stated. “He had never seen a slave without heart. In some respects, slavery was unconstitutional and the nation swept. "In 1850, Pierce was also afraid of a fragmented slave law that won the" personal liberty laws "of different states, which weakened the original 1793 spiritual slave laws. "[H] said he did not like the law – he regretted it – it was against humanity and moral law." Despite all this, the constitution was a compromise, and if it had not been a slavery, it would not have been given at all. He may not like slavery or fragmented slavery laws, but the Constitution recognizes them, and the benefits of the Constitution weighed a lot of other things or worries. [1]

Franklin Pierce was not interested in keeping slaves, and he did not speak philosophically about slavery as "positive." similar or non-constitutional constitution. [2] Instead, he had a number of practical concerns about abolitionism. His opposition to abolitionism was not proof of "racial hypocrisy" in the useful wording of Daniel Feller, where Antebellum politicians opposed slavery, but "continually reconciled their political position to practical aspects of context and consequences," but something more fundamental: suspicion of abolition. disobedience and "unrest" of citizenship are so vain, dangerous that they are driven by philanthropic abstractions rather than history and law and democratic. These suspicions reflected the excitement of the antebellum democratic party in relation to slavery – how can we reconcile the democratic decision-making with the existence of the transcendental moral values, with the Constitution, with the Bible? [3]

For Pierce, from abolition, the protest was useless because it accelerates the southern counter-reaction and stimulates the forces that support slavery, not weakening them. "On the other hand, eliminating or denying disruption or slave labor in the area has been disruptive to its maintenance or deployment," Pierce explained in his January 1856 Kansas Declaration. “One wrong gives birth to another. Statements that are totally unjustified or exaggerated about internal events in the region are spreading outermost in remote states to feed the flames of intimidating hostility there, and the blenders there seem to be tirelessly in return to encourage and stimulate disputes in the region. Unofficial activity turned out to be uncontrollable, both sides wanted to resist it, and violence led [4] Disobedience to the citizen did not solve the problems, but led to numerous unintended consequences. It only exacerbates existing tensions and created more bitterness.

Pierce used the same language in his bite in December 1856 Fourth annual address: “In extreme circumstances, extremes were created. The northern violent attack leads to an inevitable consequence of the increase in slanderous anger. ”[5] The North Democrats typically used this understanding. Pierce's successor James Buchanan stated in apply the identical factor that describes the crisis of the "gag rule" of the 1830s and 1840s in the post-war memo. “It's easy to imagine,” Buchanan wrote, “The impact of this anxiety on proud, sensitive and eager people in the South. One extreme naturally generates another. Among the latter, a party was born as fanatical as the defense of slavery, as the Northern Death Penalty condemned. "[6] In addition to not disrupting slavery, the dissolution strengthened it and lit a dirty war of war in Kansas. 19659006] This futile civilization plan was also devastating; it threatened the Union, which made American freedom and the constitution that protected it. Abolitionist arousal showed intolerance of civil society to institutions and lifestyles of other communities. This refusal "increases the brother and gentle spirit, language and behavior with respect to other states, and with respect to the various interests, institutions, and feelings and opinions that can identify them," corrodes the glue of the Union. Pierce claimed; without it the United States "did not last long." [7] Citizen disobedience was expressed in respect of the choices of citizens of other citizens whose inevitable result was violence, disunion and war. Such a large and diverse nation, the diversity of customs and ideas, was inevitable. "[I] it was superfluous to expect the same feelings or similar opinions to coincide," Pierce told former president John Tyler and the welcome committee in White Sulpher Springs, Virginia in 1855. Revolution. It is equally true at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which adopted the then thirteen states as it is now. ”[8] Why was it totally different now? Pierce warned at his 1855-year handle: “If a state ceases to respect the rights of others and indifferent to its local interests; If some states assume that they are setting up their institutions or refusing to fulfill their obligations to them, we are no longer united, friendly states, but distracting, hostile, with little capacity for common interest, but plenty of means of mutual disability and evil. “Imagine if a similar“ broker ”occurred amongst sovereign states, he continued. The outcome can be struggle. Such a horrible end result was delayed in this case, as a result of the techniques of abolition have been "left to the Union". [9] In 1863, within the midst of the warfare and reflecting, he nonetheless blamed "the citizens of too many northern states" for the battle that, by way of his invasion, hit fires, separatist "dissatisfaction" [10]

If there had been 1770s and 1780s a partial spirit would have been no union or constitution. Pierce declared in 1855:

The other spirit – one cross-sectional and fanatical – would have stamped disgrace and defeat on the revolution's entrance. It will be paralyzed by energies that, on this nice competitors for self-determination, impressed freedom of expression and gave power when energy was wanted. It will have made this sensible structure – underneath which we’ve got lived together and grown collectively in peace, beneath the management we’ve got enjoyed over sixty years of such progress, prosperity and happiness individually and socially. States and Confederations, as the world has ever seen, and solely loopy fanaticism can be blurry – unimaginable. [11]

Regardless of the individuality of American democracy on the planet, he claimed that American politicians have been "in order to preserve what would ever be lost." [12]

If the Constitution failed and collapsed in the Civil Struggle, what wouldn’t it do? – a banana republic with constant revolutions and turmoil, a return to colonial status in a overseas empire, or maybe a European autocracy? America ceases to set an example for European and South American candidates. “I hope that the faith in the constitution and the stability of the institutions it maintains is strong, but knowing the weakness of the weak human nature and the history that our path is, I really do not need to warn you that the loss of the greatest blessing you are now enjoying is not impossible, "He told the audience of New Hampshire in October 1856. Never let your mind deviate from the fact that this is a great experiment in modern times, the ability of man to self-government, and that if the experiment fails on the basis of this Constitution and this American Alliance, its success on this continent within any new arrangement is desirable. "Only a new reform of the Constitution can be ave union and american freedom" from the civil war and political anarchy or tyranny disasters that destroyed the ancient kingdoms and now prevail in the South American regions. . [13]

Also, if states are denied admission to slavery because of their attitude, wouldn't it be "forced to force the oppressed and damaged minority and place on the other two controversially hostile unions?" [14] and war, the language of Pierce darkened:

[For abolitionists] and the states they are citizens to achieve through burning cities and destroyed fields and slaughtered populations, and everything is terrible abroad with complicated content and service war, and that the first step in the quest is a violent disorder in a country that covers some freedom in its wide bust and determines an individual and public well-being without any history, and instead replaces hostile governments that drive immediately and inevitably between themselves n destruction and fratricidal massacres, now transforming the peaceful and challenging brotherhood into a huge permanent armed men's camp, such as the competing monarchies of Europe and Asia.

The American abolition and its legal tactics were war, and the Americans stood "face to face as their shoulder as friends". [15] He told the Virginia public in 1855 that his "feelings overthrown the idea of ​​the dissolution of the Union" would be "the phenomenon of our myriad troubles" if it happened. [16] Just like Benjamin Franklin's 1776 Philadelphia reminder that "we really all have to hang together, or we'll all hang separately", Pierce warned that the Union retained American freedoms and disunion threatened to disappear. Antebellum men also have to hang or "definitely" hang separately

For Pierce, the abolitionist acceleration was due to philosophical and charitable abstractions that differed from pragmatic politics, compromises, experience, adaptation, and common sense. Here, Pierce sounded like a Burkean note. In the reflections of the French Revolution, Edmund Burke suggested that the eighteenth-century Britons abandon metaphysics when considering the government, its institutions and laws. Instead, "theorists", "sophists", "enthusiasts" and "distracting" were beaten, "Burke wrote," I cannot stand still and give praise or blame for anything related to human activity and human concern. an object, as it is separated from any relationship, in the nudity and loneliness of metaphysical abstract. The circumstances (which in addition to some gentleman do not give anything) actually give each political principle its distinctive color and discriminatory effect. "[17] Pierce admitted condemning them" [a] who attracted abstract freely "without practical political considerations. [18] A visit to Philadelphia in July 1853, which was heading north to the New York World Fair, denied the founding members of the theoretician or philosopher in drafting the constitution: “These men, sir, of whom you spoke, who were designing institutions here for free government, remember, there were no holiday patriots; they were not philosophical; they were not visionary statesmen. "Instead, they were practical politicians who were armed with the lessons of history and experience and who sought to distinguish the constitutional government from the market risk in a dangerous world. [19] In 1855, he called abolitionist theories "modern isms who were strong in evil, but powerless, who could disrupt and destroy, but never build or decorate." [20] Their dangerous potential was realized by John Brown in 1859 Ferry, Virginia. "We've all seen too much indifference swelling of careless fanaticism, but we're not too late to conceive now," he wrote optimistically in a public letter to the Boston 1859 meeting. Brown's Raid was the result of these new teachings, which "remained strongly caught, which led it, with an inevitable necessity that develops the cause of influence." Setting philanthropic theories to complement society beyond constitutional law and its organized processes for compromise may be a complete society, but also kill a constitution that made it possible for civil society. [21]

The war itself deepened its conviction of the founders' nature by proclaiming in July 1863: "They were not visionary enthusiasts. unthinkable unity of some wild utopia, your own imaginations. No desperate innovator was them, bent out of horror that could only lead to general confusion, anarchy and chaos. Oh no! They were deep but wild and practical statesmen who saw society as a living fact, not a worrying sight. “The error is after the" third generation "was created. Creating Private Practice with "Passionate Feelings of Narrow and Aggressive Period". [22] Of course, Pierce did not include himself in third generation indiscretion.

His close friend and MP, author Nathanial Hawthorne, aptly described the philanthropic trend in many of his novels and stories. His 1843 story "The Birthmark" tells, for example, an alchemy called Dr. Alymer, a "light philosopher" that was replaced by his wife's birth sign, "a visible sign of earthly imperfection." a tyrannical effect that one idea has gained over his mind, and he takes him away by swallowing the potion. His wife, Georgiana, states that her husband's "greatest achievements were almost always failures, as opposed to the idea to which he was directed" but accepts his demands. "Remove it, remove it, no matter the cost, or we both go crazy!" He screams. He drinks a drink, the birthmark disappears, and he dies immediately. He is now complete, but also dead [23] Likewise, the Hawthorn's 1852 novel Blithdale Romance talks about the failure of a transcendentalist-minded community outside Boston, where noble theoretical intentions reduce jealousy and competition to human reality. Franklin Pierce's life explained the harmony of their ideas well. Some considered slavery a "benevolent theory," which means abolishing. Hawthorne and Pierce are not. They looked at it through the eyes of a constitutional statesman:

The theorist can take a view of [the abolitionist] in his closet; a practitioner can strive to act rigorously in the midst of his life's war and war. But a state-of-the-art poverty statesman who loves the country as it is and develops good things that exist, and who wants to feel his business understand better reality before he finishes already – is likely to be here, all of America's greatest statesmen, to maintain a conservative attitude . In any case, Franklin Pierce's attitude… In all history there is no human will and intellect that would have complemented any great moral reform by the methods it has adapted for this purpose; but the advancement of the world, at every step, leaves some evil or false path behind the wisdom of mankind, of its own set goal, could never have been found to remedy.

Even in the war years, Hawthorne continued. In his unpopular 1862 Atlantic article, "Mostly War Things," the author complained: "There is no human effort on a large scale, according to the purpose of its projectors …. We lack the good we are looking for and do the good things we managed a little. "Dr. Alymer killed his wife to remove the birth; [24]

These concerns point to Pierce's final claim that ceasing civilian hatred was ultimately anti-democratic, and uses the political theory of Willmoore Kendall's "term" constitutionally moral. "Violence and anti-civilianism reject the attempts of democracy to control itself when it fits, and a dissatisfied minority refuses to use prohibited legal-political channels or to comply with the decisions of political institutions. [25] Democratic decision-making reflects the "community's thoughtfulness", Kendall explained where elected leaders are considering completing and voting [26] If a majority supports a particular policy, it becomes a law and the minority obeys it despite their opposition. because individuals who are free in social order can rely on the belief they hold most, unless they make themselves solemn, we people listen to them. okay to insure the processes of building a consensus on their strongly held beliefs, but the one virtue they need to grow is that it is not too busy, and the other is that it does not expect other people, their neighbors, to give [27]

cannot exist unless you stop following the majority decision and wait patiently for their fault in getting and receiving support. The activists must "cool down to their heels until the consensus expressed either through the process of change or the consensus of the three industries has turned back or at least accepted what they proposed." [28]

If, after the election, there is no "peaceful transmission of power" and no continuity and implementation of laws, but only a cruel struggle between individuals and interest groups outside Hobbes for power. Kendall described this process as a "derailment" of the American constitutional system, in which a minority refuses to comply with its rules, "being extremely sure that they are right and all others are not just wrong, but wrong because of their evil and perversity. immediately, are unlikely to wait for a deliberate feeling in the community and are unlikely to be satisfied with any process of persuasion and conviction. They know they are right. ” [30]

Thus, Pierce repeatedly described the 2 sides of antebellum as a political debate: those who adopted and supported democratic decision-making, and those who didn’t and did not select citizenship disobedience; made the Constitution a compromise and an entire, and those who break it into morally acceptable and acceptable elements. The first theorist of the Antebellum civilian population was Piercen's New Englander Henry David Thoreau. In 1846, Thoreau wrote about his obligation of civil hatred:

Has the citizen ever, or at the least to a minimal, divorced his conscience? Why is each human being an conscience? I feel we ought to be men and subjects later. It isn’t fascinating to increase respect for the regulation as a lot as justice. The one obligation I’ve the fitting to imagine is to do it proper at any time… I feel all voting is a type of recreation like oak or backgammon with a low ethical tone, enjoying right and flawed ethical points; and betting is, in fact, associated to it. The clever man does not depart the suitable to probability, and does not want it by way of the facility of the prevailing majority. [31]

However for Democrats reminiscent of Pierce Democrats, if conscience was dominated by democratic energy and the vote was merely gambling, we had both an anarchy of the individual who tried to see a superb or self-anointed theocracy guided by the philosopher kings who have overwhelming awareness. Thoreau's imaginative and prescient made constitutional democracy inconceivable. "If there are provisions in the country's constitution that are not in line with principle or expediency, remember that because of the nature of the instrument that could only have been a compromise on the instrument," Pierce explained to the New York public in 1853 "[A] Also remember that you are faithful Respect and common honesty if you agree to enjoy the principles set for it and try to avoid potential burdens. It cannot be accepted in part; it is a whole or nothing, and as a whole, with all the rights it secures, and the obligations it needs, it must be holy. "[32] Individual opinions on the best and fallacious laws or elements of the structure have to be filtered by means of a negotiating democratic process where residents accept them as constitutionally right or rejected. There are not any other options. “It doesn't matter what our special views can be, or what prejudices can be held by our mind or heart. If, as an American citizen, we are seen as a constraint of law or a higher statutory law, then we will abandon the constitutional obligations and will not only have the requirement of the protection and blessings it gives. ”[33] Selective obedience was not an choice and it destroyed just what the Constitution was written to guard.

Establishments, akin to political parties, assemblies and constitutions, filtered and measured the worth of human passions and concepts. This continuous, thoughtful evaluation of thoughts was prevented by the socially and legally damaging doctrines that attraction to the conscience of the person and the "higher law" in relation to the structure and acted as an inspection for people who’ve harmed their own knowledge, quite than for the wants of the wider group. . Pierce and conservative North Democrats didn’t trust particular person feelings, appeal to private morality or Christian greater regulation, make responsible selections for the entire group. This shaped a type of sectarian intolerance and spiritual intrusion into political decision-making. Although Pierce was opposed to spiritual discrimination towards shakers and Roman Catholics, and labored (with combined outcomes) as a lawyer and politician, he additionally strongly refused faith that disrupted politics. Writing to Buchanan in November 1856 when New Hampshire voted Republican, Pierce defined bitterly: "It is certainly not relaxable to know that the ruling power of our party was a perverted and dried sanctuary." , heresy and deception as each basic election approaches is basically surprising. We are all answerable for persevering with such unreasonable and harmful teachings – We’ve given an excessive amount of attention to this educating via our silent presence. "[35] Pierce joined the Bishop's Church in 1865 partly because it was" stubbornly and persistently avoiding earthly and political matters in his sermon ", and St. Paul's Bishop's Church in Concord in New Hampshire never talked about current events. [36]

also that the rule of conscience is rather than the constitution destroyed by political institutions and the law. marvel at the thoughts that our Union has of an intrinsic strength that is not dependent on the people's dedication to constitutional law. It is as strong as devotion, and respect or neglect of constitutional law. it stays or falls, "Pierce advised the New Hampshire viewers in 1856. [37] He continued in two 1859 public letters:" Do you hear the constitution of the country, not circulating reluctance, but good loyalty? " be brotherhood with out justice. However what about justice? It is clear that if we take pleasure in the benefits of the Constitution, we must fulfill the obligations imposed on it. ”[38] The theme was widespread amongst Antebellum Democrats. President Buchanan agreed: “If the general spirit [law] is prevailing, it will prove to us to be a fatal nation. We do not recognize the master, but the law; and if we should cut off its limitations and everyone does what looks good with our own eyes, our case is really hopeless. "[39] Catholic journalist Orestes Brownson, New England's Democratic Modern Pierce, proposed a rule of conscience, and a higher law conquered legal authority:" The government's appeal to a private judgment is to impose a private judgment over a government that is a supranational person who, as we have seen , is inconsistent with the existence of the government, and because the government is a divine ordinance strictly prohibited by God's law. [40] Although Brownson went further than Pierce, which would have been uncomfortable with Brownson's religious argument, it continues to portray the northern democratic anxiety of mixing the rule of law with selective

We cannot accept some laws or how other states engage in public business, declared Pierce, but functioning constitutional democracy requires respect for their ability to control themselves. Texas had "the social institutions that his people chose for themselves," and "the new territories were organized without restriction on the disputed point [of slavery] and were left to be condemned in this particular case." [41] Those who opposed the revocation of the Missouri Compromise

have never ceased and condemned it from the time when the restrictive provision [that Congress shall make no law regarding slavery in the territories] was adopted today; who have consistently refused to supplement it with the necessary additional legislation; who have saved no strain to deprive the moral force that has tried themselves again and again to overcome the incompatible regulations, and who, due to the inevitable reactive influence of their own violence, woke up to the perception of the real constitutional principle leaving the matter to the discretionary powers of the present or early states concerned [42]

To say that democratic decision-making has sometimes led to errors or legislative to bad or even dangerous laws was completely beside this point – Defining democracy in this way was to show that it was determined at its ends, does not mean. “It has not been pretended that this principle, or anything else, would prevent the possibility of evil in practice, the passions of the human being disturbed when political action can be. Ei minkäänlaista hallituksen muotoa ole vapautettu haitoista ”, Pierce kirjoitti vuonna 1855. Kansasin huonontunut tilanne ei johtunut kansan suvereniteetista, vaan sen hylkäämisestä”, joka johtui siitä, että varattujen oikeuksien väärinkäyttö ei ole oikeutettu alueelle. Niitä ei pidä kantaa suuren yleisön suvereniteetin periaatteeseen. Päinvastoin, ne katoavat ennen ihmisten älykkyyttä ja isänmaallisuutta, he tekevät äänestyslaatikon kautta rauhanomaisen ja hiljaisen, mutta vastustamattoman voimansa. ”[43] Pierce kuvasi jälleen eroa, jossa toisella puolella abolitionistinen kansalainen tottelemattomuus ei halunnut noudattaa poliittista ja oikeudelliset päätökset, jotka se havaitsi omantunnon vastaisesti, ja toisaalta perinteisen demokraattisen itsehallinnon "rauhanomainen ja hiljainen mutta vastustamaton voima"; "laittoman väkivallan ja toisaalta konservatiivisen voiman välillä, jota hallitsee julkisyhteisöjen oikeusviranomainen." [44]

Pierce kuvaili näitä kahta kilpailevaa ajatusta, joka viittaa keskeiseen jännitteeseen antebellumin hallinnassa: demokraattinen itsemääräämisoikeus ja transsendenttiset moraaliset arvot tai mitä historioitsija James Huston on kutsunut "demokratiaksi prosessiksi" ("prosessi, jossa ihmiset valitsevat lakeja, joita he asuivat. Poliittinen moraali määräytyi prosessin, ei tuloksen perusteella.") ja " Democracy by Scripture” (“The purpose of government or a democratic society is to obey [the Christian moral] code more perfectly than other forms of government. The success or failure of democracy is thereby gauged as to how far the outcome deviates from the standard of truth , in this case biblical commandments or biblical reasoning.”).[45] In the first, morality seems incidental with a purpose to make democracy significant. Definitely Pierce and conservative Democrats appeared to assume so; in any case, if morality was main, selection can be secondary, and you wouldn’t have common sovereignty, democracy, or any version of free authorities, but a theocracy. Huston even describes one of these authorities as “inherently (morally) relativistic.”[46] In the second, selection seems incidental for humans to stay the life God meant, the life with God in grace, or as Huston notes, “as soon as the moral path is described, there is no choice—except to sin, and that represents the negation of a true choice.”[47] This also distinguished conservative Northern Democrats from Southern pro-slavery Democrats as a lot as it from anti-slavery activists. Both pro and anti-slavery advocates claimed God as justification for their aspect, slavery as morally proper or incorrect, and each sought limitations on democracy to secure their ideas. Democracy was incidental to each moralities. Thus, on one hand you could have an amoral democracy of residents, hopefully enlightened and not debauched, and on the other a theocratic aristocracy of ministers and clergymen making males moral.

However was this rigidity real? Did Pierce and fellow conservative Northern Democrats (all adherents to some variant of Christianity and its values) align themselves with the forces of amorality and relativism, course of with out values? Pierce was silent on the subject but, as some extent of conjecture, it’s unlikely. First, in making fealty to the Structure a civic faith, the rejection of which would plunge America into a post-Constitutional hell of anarchy and warfare, Pierce launched an ethical dimension to obeying the regulation and collaborating in constitutional processes. Indeed, he condemned 1850s abolitionists and reformers for “moral treason to the Union.”[48] Second, the democratic course of wasan expression of moral values—a mixture of selection and Biblical morality—in that the one grace value having was that which was freely chosen. Subsequently, well-liked sovereignty and democratic, constitutional self-government was not an expression of moral ambiguity, but a recognition that grace was a selection and that males must choose it themselves for it to carry which means. Massachusetts males making Kansas men arrange their communities in a specific method can be dangerous politics; Massachusetts men making Kansas men ethical can be dangerous theology. In one was the absence of freedom and selection; within the different was the absence of ethical information and grace. One made man unfree; another made man morally ignorant. Pierce believed in style sovereignty and self-government have been important to each.

This rationalization of language and concepts might not redeem Pierce within the eyes of those who see him as a pliant “doughface,” however it restores a level of rationality to his ideas and those of the conservative Northern Democracy. Armed with historic information and political ideas to match, they surveyed American political geography and acted accordingly. Neither their decisions nor their ideas could also be congenial to us. What if men, for example, lacked the required civil and personal virtues to make prudent decisions? Pierce could be rightly criticized for his naïve perception that men, given liberty in a democratic polity to make selections, would choose grace without the firm authority of ecclesiastical, governmental, and group institutions. His sunny Jeffersonianism contrasts with the human capacity and historic report of selecting poorly. Nonetheless, these have been individuals who took democratic self-government significantly. In a world where the survival of democracy was hardly guaranteed, there’s something understandable in that.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the precept of appreciation to the dialogue of tradition and politics—we strategy dialogue with magnanimity quite than with mere civility. Do you assist us to take care of a refreshing oasis in a up to date discourse within the more and more controversial area? Please contemplate donating now.

1 Harmony Unbiased Democrat, January 8, 1852; Roy Nichols, Younger Hickory of the Granite Hills. Philadelphia: College of Pennsylvania Press, 1931, 191-192, Peter A. Wallner. Franklin Pierce: New Hampshire’s Favourite Son. Concord, NH: Plaidswede Publishing, 2004. 187, 220-221.

2 Congressional Globe, January 9, 1838.

3 Daniel Feller, “A Brother in Arms: Benjamin Tappan and Antislavery Democracy,” Journal of American History, 2001, 88 (1), 50; for a discussion of Democratic Free Soil adherents, additionally see Jonathan Earle, Jacksonian Anti-Slavery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854. Chapel Hill: University of NorthCarolina Press, 2004.

four A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897. James D. Richardson, ed. Washington, DC: United States Congress, 1899. V, 359.

5 Ibid, V, 399. The Handle was roundly attacked by Republicans and the Republican press as inflammatory and partisan. Pierce’s most recent biographer notes, “It may have been impolitic to use the occasion of his final message for such a partisan attack, but Pierce’s honesty always trumped his political sensitivity. He could not leave the national stage without forcibly stating his views.” Peter A. Wallner, Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union. Harmony, NH: Plaidswede Publishing, 2007. 297.

6 James Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan’s Administration, 14.

7 Richardson, V, 224-225.

eight New York Occasions, August 28, 1855.

9 Richardson, V, 343-344.

10 Providence Every day Publish, July 7, 1863.

11 New York Occasions, August 28, 1855.

12 Ibid.

13 Boston Day by day Advertiser, October 3, 1856.

14 Richardson, V, 349.

15 Ibid, V, 398-99.

16 Every day Morning News [Savannah, GA]25 Aug, 1855, quoting from the Vindicator [Staunton, VA].

17 Edmund Burke. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Firm, 1987, 7.

18 Richardson, V, 399.

19 North American and United States Gazette [Philadelphia, PA]July 13, 1853.

20 New York Occasions, August 28, 1855.

21 Ibid, December 9, 1859; Antebellum Democrats like Pierce, Douglas, and Buchanan had a fixation with Edmund Burke. See Jean Baker, Affairs of Social gathering: The Political Culture of Northern Democrats in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983 and Michael J. Connolly, “‘Tearing Down the Burning House’: James Buchanan’s use of Edmund Burke,” American Nineteenth Century History, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2009, 211-221.

22 Windfall Day by day Publish, July 7, 1863.

23 Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Full Novels and Selected Tales of Nathaniel Hawthorne. New York: Random Home/Trendy Library, 1937, 1021-1033; Additionally see Gorman Beauchamp, “Hawthorne and the Universal Reformers.” Utopian Research 13, no. 2 (2002): 38-52.

24 Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Lifetime of Franklin Pierce. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall Publishers, 2000, 16, 82-83; Beauchamp, “Hawthorne,” 39.

25 Richardson, V, 292.

26 Willmoore Kendall. The Conservative Affirmation in America. Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1985, xiii, 36-37.

27 Willmoore Kendall. The American Political Custom. Washington, DC: The Catholic College of America Press, 1995, 149-150.

28 Willmoore Kendall. Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum. Ed. Nellie D. Kendall. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1971, 369.

29 Kendall. Tradition, 143-144.

30 Franklin Pierce to “Dear Friend,” January 20, 1860. Franklin Pierce Papers, New Hampshire Historic Society (NHHS).

31 Henry David Thoreau. On the Obligation of Civil Disobedience. Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 9, 14.

32 The Weekly Herald [New York]July 16, 1853. The emphasis is mine.

33 New York Occasions, August 28, 1855.

34 Franklin Pierce to James Buchanan, November 20, 1856. James Buchanan Papers, Historic Society of Pennsylvania.

35 Franklin Pierce to “Dear Friend,” February 17, 1860. Pierce Papers, NHHS.

36 Wallner. Franklin Pierce: Martyr for the Union, 365.

37 Boston Day by day Advertiser, October three, 1856.

38 New York Occasions, December 9, 1860 and December 23, 1860.

39 James Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan’s Administration, 35.

40 Orestes Brownson, “The Higher Law,” The Collected Works of Orestes Brownson, XVII, 9-10.

41 Richardson, V, 346-347.

42 Ibid, V, 348-349.

43 Ibid, V, 349.

44 Ibid, V, 391.

45 James L. Huston, “Democracy by Scripture versus Democracy by Process: A Reflection on Stephen A. Douglas and Popular Sovereignty,” Civil Conflict History, XLIII, 3, 1997, 190.

46 Ibid, 195.

47 Ibid, 193.

48 Franklin Pierce to “Dear Friend,” January 20, 1860. Pierce Papers, (NHHS).

Editor’s Observe: The featured image is a portrait of Franklin Pierce (1804-1853) by artist George Peter Alexander Healy (1813-1894), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Friendly, PDF & Email